tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post410826522775596727..comments2023-09-23T05:56:35.265+12:00Comments on MandM: Mumbai, Muslims & Libertarian SuMandMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02694636663826784480noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-27802531619256229352009-05-23T17:02:42.000+12:002009-05-23T17:02:42.000+12:00There is an Islamic code of conduct, which is spel...There is an Islamic code of conduct, which is spelled out in great detail in such works as Morals and Manners in Islam: A Guide to Islamic Adab, by Marwan Ibrahim Al-Kaysi (The Islamic Foundation), and The Lawful and the Prohibited in Islam, by Yusuf Al-Qaradawi (American Trust Publications). It is incumbent upon all Muslims to follow the essentials of this code at all times, in all situations, and in their dealings with all people - both Muslim and non-Muslim. I say "essentials" because, of course, there are parts of the code that apply to such things as religious observances, which are specific to certain times/places and which naturally exclude non-Muslims. All Muslims know, or should know, their Islamic code of conduct. If they choose to ignore it or to tendentiously "interpret" it, they cease to be "Muslim" in any meaningful sense of the word. - Alan Irelandluckykiwinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-79778212955015306872009-05-23T17:00:16.000+12:002009-05-23T17:00:16.000+12:00There is an Islamic code of conduct, which is spel...There is an Islamic code of conduct, which is spelled out in great detail in such works as Morals and Manners in Islam: A Guide to Islamic Adab, by Marwan Ibrahim Al-Kaysi (The Islamic Foundation), and The Lawful and the Prohibited in Islam, by Yusul Al-Qaradawi (American Trust Publications). It is incumbent upon all Muslims to follow the essentials of this code at all times, in all situations, and in their dealings with all people - both Muslim and non-Muslim. I say "essentials" because, of course, there are parts of the code that apply to such things as religious observances, which are specific to certain times/places and which naturally exclude non-Muslims. All Muslims know, or should know, their Islamic code of conduct. If they choose to ignore it or to tendentiously "interpret" it, they cease to be "Muslim" in any meaningful sense of the word. - Alan Irelandluckykiwinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-79223587307052326772008-12-03T15:19:00.000+13:002008-12-03T15:19:00.000+13:00``To show western governments were terrorist you w...``To show western governments were terrorist you would have to show that they have a policy of deliberately targeting non combatant populations for this purpose and its not obvious they do[.]''<BR/><BR/>Two things:<BR/><BR/>One. See: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb4345/is_/ai_n29359193<BR/><BR/>Two: You end up making the same mistake I might have made, of conflating Governments with potential terrorist organisations. Now, there is a literature on whether Governments do terrorise their populations (short summary; yes, but not in every case) and a literature on whether Governments acting outside their borders can be said to terrorise other populations (short summary; yes, but not always intentionally). But, importantly, most of the terrorist organisations the West are afeared of are not governmental (and those that are end up being contentious and controversial cases).<BR/><BR/>So, let's let the governments of the respective sides argument be left to one side. <BR/><BR/>Usually what happens now is that people end up fingering other factors, such as ethnicity and religious affiliation. This introduces a new problem, however. It seems fairly clear, given certain acts by American and British troops in the Middle-East that some sections of the armed services engage in classic terrorising or terrorist activity (ala my original definition, which is the standard definition of terrorist activity (and of which the link above is just a small insight into the psychological explanation as to why this kind of activity, in re the War on Terror, might occur)). Now, an awful lot of these terrorists are Christians (and, admittedly, some will be of other faiths) but I'm sure we don't want to blame Christianity for their acts. Far better to cite situational factors.<BR/><BR/>In which case the fact that may of these particular terrorists are Muslims may end up being the elephant in the room.<BR/><BR/>I'm always reminded of Ireland when people talk about the evil Muslim terrorists. The terror war between North and South Ireland was ostensibly Protestant vs. Catholic, but really only because they were convenient generalisations of the two populations. It was more a fight between an interferring invader (typified as Protestants) and a people who just wanted security in their own land (typified as Catholics). Given that we Westerners have spent over a century interfering in the Middle-East I'm not surprised some of its varied (ethnically, culturally and religiously) populace has struck out. That doesn't excuse the actions in any moral sense, of course, but we should be very wary of making ourselves out to be noble non-terrorists. We aren't exactly virtuous (as a group) are we.Matthew R. X. Dentithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12499867223966169985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-73882833150639638982008-12-03T12:46:00.000+13:002008-12-03T12:46:00.000+13:00Hi Horansome good to hear from you again. It seems...Hi Horansome good to hear from you again. <BR/><BR/>It seems to me that “the standard definition of terrorism you put forward is flawed. You define terrorism as <BR/><BR/>``Any one who attempts to further his views by a system of coercive intimidation'' now according to this definition all governments no matter how benign would be terrorists. <BR/><BR/>This is far to broad, it seems to me that *any* legal system of any country, even one that respects human rights is a “system of coercive intimidation”. When governments pass laws against rape murder etc they back these up with threats of coercive sanctions and one function of doing so is to intimidate people into not committing these crimes. Hence the standard definition would mean that passing laws against rape, murder etc constitutes terrorism, and that seems to me absurd. <BR/><BR/>Now I agree, that *if* you define terrorism is a way that almost every government action is terrorist regardless by its nature one can show that western governments are terrorists, but that’s hardly an informative claim. If I defined terrorism as “a Muslim” I could just as easily show that all Muslims were terrorists, both tactics simply involve a linguistic sleight of hand. <BR/><BR/>I would define terrorism a bit more narrowly, it would involve the deliberate targeting of non-combatants and civilians, for example and would probably also involve a purpose of some sort such as striking fear and terror into the civilian population so as to put pressure on the government of the nation in question to comply with ones demands. On this definition I think the allies actions in bombing Dresden and Hiroshima were probably terrorist attacks. However it’s not obvious that children killed by US attacks on Taliban soldier (combatants) who have unlawfully housed and hidden themselves in civilian population constitutes terrorism. <BR/><BR/>To show western governments were terrorist you would have to show that they have a policy of deliberately targeting non combatant populations for this purpose and its not obvious they do, it is however un-controversial to note that many groups that do are Islamic groups, and their rationale is theological based on a particular interpretation of Islamic ethics.Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04354340839915905028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-57717918007666295152008-12-03T10:48:00.000+13:002008-12-03T10:48:00.000+13:00I know this isn't exactly your sentiment (although...I know this isn't exactly your sentiment (although you do endorse the general thrust of the piece) but this really is facile:<BR/><BR/>``But the cold, hard truth is that while not all Muslims are terrorists – all terrorists right now would appear to be Muslim.''<BR/><BR/>Given that the standard definition of `terrorist' is:<BR/><BR/>``Any one who attempts to further his views by a system of coercive intimidation'' (OED)<BR/><BR/>it would appear that not all terrorists right now would appear to be Muslims at all. Some of them are also Westerners in Muslim nations.<BR/><BR/>Blanket statements like that given by Susan the Libertarian are not helpful and we should be careful to make sure we do not endorse them.Matthew R. X. Dentithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12499867223966169985noreply@blogger.com